Difference between revisions of "IS428 AY2019-20T1 Assign Foo Yong Long RiskAnalysis"

From Visual Analytics for Business Intelligence
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(6 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 25: Line 25:
 
<!-- Header End -->
 
<!-- Header End -->
 
<br>
 
<br>
 +
 +
<br>
 +
 +
<p>Your task, as supported by visual analytics that you apply, is to help St. Himark’s emergency management team combine data from the government-operated stationary monitors with data from citizen-operated mobile sensors to help them better understand conditions in the city and identify likely locations that will require further monitoring, cleanup, or even evacuation. Will data from citizen scientists clarify the situation or make it more uncertain? Use visual analytics to develop responses to the questions below.
  
 
== Question 1 ==
 
== Question 1 ==
 
===Visualize radiation measurements over time from both static and mobile sensors to identify areas where radiation over background is detected. Characterize changes over time.===
 
===Visualize radiation measurements over time from both static and mobile sensors to identify areas where radiation over background is detected. Characterize changes over time.===
 
----
 
----
 +
 
<br>
 
<br>
 
<p>
 
<p>
Line 65: Line 70:
 
===Use visual analytics to represent and analyze uncertainty in the measurement of radiation across the city. Compare uncertainty of the static sensors to the mobile sensors. What anomalies can you see? Are there sensors that are too uncertain to trust?===
 
===Use visual analytics to represent and analyze uncertainty in the measurement of radiation across the city. Compare uncertainty of the static sensors to the mobile sensors. What anomalies can you see? Are there sensors that are too uncertain to trust?===
 
----
 
----
−
<br>
 
−
<p>
 
−
<div style="background: #364558; padding: 15px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 0.3em; text-indent: 0px;font-size:20px"><font face="Arial" color=#fbfcfd><center>'''Missing Data'''</center></font></div>
 
  
−
{| class="wikitable" style="background-color:#FFFFFF;" width="100%"
+
 
−
|-
 
−
! style="font-weight: bold;background: #536a87;color:#fbfcfd;width: 10%;" | Step
 
−
! style="font-weight: bold;background: #536a87;color:#fbfcfd;width: 90%;" | Description
 
−
|-
 
−
|
 
−
1
 
−
||
 
 
[[File:MissingMobile.png|900px|center]]
 
[[File:MissingMobile.png|900px|center]]
 
                                                             '''Mobile'''
 
                                                             '''Mobile'''
 
[[File:MissingStatic.png|900px|center]]
 
[[File:MissingStatic.png|900px|center]]
 
                                                             '''Static'''
 
                                                             '''Static'''
 +
There were missing data for both the Static and Mobile Sensors.
  
−
There were missing data for both the Static and Mobile Sensors.
 
  
−
|-
 
−
|
 
−
2
 
−
||
 
  
 
[[File:EarthQuake.png|900px|center]]
 
[[File:EarthQuake.png|900px|center]]
Line 97: Line 88:
 
Subsequently, there is an increase in radiation levels among radiation levels from 8th April onwards and more sensors stopped functioning.  
 
Subsequently, there is an increase in radiation levels among radiation levels from 8th April onwards and more sensors stopped functioning.  
  
−
|-
 
  
−
|-
 
  
−
<br>
 
 
===Which regions of the city have greater uncertainty of radiation measurement? Use visual analytics to explain your rationale. What effects do you see in the sensor readings after the earthquake and other major events? What effect do these events have on uncertainty?===
 
===Which regions of the city have greater uncertainty of radiation measurement? Use visual analytics to explain your rationale. What effects do you see in the sensor readings after the earthquake and other major events? What effect do these events have on uncertainty?===
 
----
 
----
−
<br>
 
−
<p>
 
−
<div style="background: #364558; padding: 15px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 0.3em; text-indent: 0px;font-size:20px"><font face="Arial" color=#fbfcfd><center>'''Overall Region Uncertainty'''</center></font></div>
 
−
 
−
 
−
|
 
−
3
 
−
||
 
  
 
'''Static Sensors'''
 
'''Static Sensors'''
Line 125: Line 105:
 
Furthermore, sensors 13 and sensor 15 are too abnormal to trust. Despite having reported high radiation levels after 8th April, these sensors remain stagnant with little or no spike despite being only 2.5 and 0.86 miles respectively from the radiator.  
 
Furthermore, sensors 13 and sensor 15 are too abnormal to trust. Despite having reported high radiation levels after 8th April, these sensors remain stagnant with little or no spike despite being only 2.5 and 0.86 miles respectively from the radiator.  
  
−
|-
 
−
|
 
−
4
 
−
||
 
  
 
'''Mobile Sensors'''
 
'''Mobile Sensors'''
Line 146: Line 122:
 
Mobile sensors presents greater loss of data compared to static sensors due to a higher chance of wear and tear. Furthermore, since they are stuck onto cars, data connectivity might be loss throughout the journey.  
 
Mobile sensors presents greater loss of data compared to static sensors due to a higher chance of wear and tear. Furthermore, since they are stuck onto cars, data connectivity might be loss throughout the journey.  
  
−
Furthermore, once a car is contaminated, the sensor will only reflect the value of radiation coming from the car and not the surrounding area. This can be seen from the graph above which shows mobile sensors 9,10,20,21,22,24,25,27,28,29 and 45 having lots of missing data or inflated radiation values after the earthquake.  
+
Furthermore, once a car is contaminated, the sensor will only reflect the value of radiation coming from the car and not the surrounding area. This can be seen from the graph above which shows mobile sensors 9,10,20,21,22,24,25,27,28,29 and 45 having lots of missing data or inflated radiation values after the earthquake.
−
 
 
−
|-
 
  
 
== Question 3 ==  
 
== Question 3 ==  
Line 155: Line 129:
 
<br>
 
<br>
 
<p>
 
<p>
−
<div style="background: #364558; padding: 15px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 0.3em; text-indent: 0px;font-size:20px"><font face="Arial" color=#fbfcfd><center>'''Identifying Contamination Under Uncertainty'''</center></font></div>
+
<div style="background: #364558; padding: 15px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 0.3em; text-indent: 0px;font-size:20px"><font face="Arial" color=#fbfcfd><center>'''Potential Locations of contamination'''</center></font></div>
  
−
[[File:LPXASG8.jpg| 900px |center]]
 
 
{| class="wikitable" style="background-color:#FFFFFF;" width="100%"
 
{| class="wikitable" style="background-color:#FFFFFF;" width="100%"
 
|-
 
|-
Line 166: Line 139:
 
1
 
1
 
||  
 
||  
−
In situations where multiple areas show signs of possible contamination and the city lacks resources to assess all of them given that the readings might be inaccurate, a decision can be made based on the number of sensors in the region. If a particular region has a large number of sensors with high average ratings, it is more likely that it is indeed a contaminated area. However, caution has to be taken as just 1 rogue sensor with extremely high readings can bring up the overall average. Hence, a decision has to be made after carefully comparing the standard deviation and number of sensors.
+
 
 +
After viewing the static sensor data, the only spikes that went above 100 happened in five locations, which are Jade Bridge, Old Town, Safe Town, DownTown and Broadview.
 +
 
 +
[[File:Spike_100Static.png| 900px |center]]
 +
 
 +
For better analysis, I have grouped together mobile sensors that have a trail of high radiation values within the five days as shown below.  
 +
 
 +
[[File:MobileSensorsHighgroup.png| 900px |center]]
 
|}
 
|}
  
 
<br>
 
<br>
 
<p>
 
<p>
−
<div style="background: #364558; padding: 15px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 0.3em; text-indent: 0px;font-size:20px"><font face="Arial" color=#fbfcfd><center>'''Contamination Clusters'''</center></font></div>
+
<div style="background: #364558; padding: 15px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 0.3em; text-indent: 0px;font-size:20px"><font face="Arial" color=#fbfcfd><center>'''Tracking car movements'''</center></font></div>
 +
 
 +
To better analyze potential locations of contamination, I would plot the coordinates of these group of mobile sensors and analyze their travel routes during the 5 days.
 +
 
 +
[[File:Mobile20_49.png| 600px |center]]
  
−
[[File:LPXASG9.jpg| 900px |center]]
+
[[File:Mobile9_10.png| 600px |center]]
 +
 
{| class="wikitable" style="background-color:#FFFFFF;" width="100%"
 
{| class="wikitable" style="background-color:#FFFFFF;" width="100%"
 
|-
 
|-
Line 182: Line 167:
 
2
 
2
 
||  
 
||  
−
Possibly contaminated areas throughout the simulation are East Parton, Safe Town, East Parton, and Scenic Vista.
+
After analyzing the route taken by the mobile sensors, I can confidently assure that there is contamination at Old Town, Jade Bridge, Safe Town, and Scenic Vista. For Mobile Sensors,20,21,22,24,25,27,28,29 and 45, their radiation value was low until they hit Scenic Vista and Jade Bridge, where their radiation value spike.
 +
 
 +
For Mobile Sensors 9 and 10, their radiation count only picked up once they were close to the nuclear plant and when they were at Jade Bridge. If sensors are working all right, despite being really close to the nuclear plant, the cars are not contaminated as they show no signs of high radiations values at other cities.  
 
|}
 
|}
  
 
<br>
 
<br>
 
<p>
 
<p>
−
<div style="background: #364558; padding: 15px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 0.3em; text-indent: 0px;font-size:20px"><font face="Arial" color=#fbfcfd><center>'''Contamination Spreading'''</center></font></div>
+
<div style="background: #364558; padding: 15px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 0.3em; text-indent: 0px;font-size:20px"><font face="Arial" color=#fbfcfd><center>'''End State'''</center></font></div>
−
 
 
−
[[File:LPXASG10.jpg| 900px |center]]
 
−
{| class="wikitable" style="background-color:#FFFFFF;" width="100%"
 
−
|-
 
−
! style="font-weight: bold;background: #536a87;color:#fbfcfd;width: 10%;" | No.
 
−
! style="font-weight: bold;background: #536a87;color:#fbfcfd;width: 90%;" | Description
 
−
|-
 
−
|
 
−
3
 
−
||
 
−
The number of cars travelling through each region plays a part in analysing possible contaminations. For example, 34 out of the 50 cars passed by Easton during the simulation, meaning that Easton is frequently visited by the majority of St.Himark’s residents. Should there be a radioactive leak or contaminant in Easton, there is a high chance that it might contaminate all the other cars that pass by and spread to the other regions.
 
−
|-
 
−
|
 
−
4
 
−
||
 
−
Another concern is the routine of each individual car. Some cars pass through a large number of regions daily, and some stay within 1 or 2 regions. If an extremely mobile car gets contaminated and goes about its daily routine, it may spread the contaminant to the all regions it visits.
 
−
|}
 
−
 
 
  
 
===Estimate how many cars may have been contaminated when coolant leaked from the Always Safe plant. Use visual analysis of radiation measurements to determine if any have left the area.===
 
===Estimate how many cars may have been contaminated when coolant leaked from the Always Safe plant. Use visual analysis of radiation measurements to determine if any have left the area.===
Line 213: Line 182:
 
<div style="background: #364558; padding: 15px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 0.3em; text-indent: 0px;font-size:20px"><font face="Arial" color=#fbfcfd><center>'''Possibly Contaminated Cars'''</center></font></div>
 
<div style="background: #364558; padding: 15px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 0.3em; text-indent: 0px;font-size:20px"><font face="Arial" color=#fbfcfd><center>'''Possibly Contaminated Cars'''</center></font></div>
  
−
[[File:LPXASG11.jpg| 900px |center]]
+
[[File:EndState.png| 900px |center]]
 
{| class="wikitable" style="background-color:#FFFFFF;" width="100%"
 
{| class="wikitable" style="background-color:#FFFFFF;" width="100%"
 
|-
 
|-
Line 220: Line 189:
 
|-
 
|-
 
|  
 
|  
−
5
+
3
 
||  
 
||  
−
These 9 cars were parked at the southern side of the island overnight, and gradually left the island via Wilson Forest Highway during the day on April 9.
+
On April 10 at 11 pm, there were only two cars left out of the possible contaminated cars(Sensor ID 9 & 10). The rest of the cars have exited via Wilson Forest Highway from Scenic Vista.
 
|-
 
|-
 
|  
 
|  
−
6
+
4
 
||  
 
||  
−
Mobile sensor 20 remained stationary throughout the day, inside Scenic Vista. Radiation readings were normal until about 3pm on April 9, when readings began to spike. This could be when the coolant leak happened.
+
Sensor 20 arrived at Scenic Vista on April 9, it got a spike in radiation levels at about 3pm to a level of 184.  
 
|-
 
|-
 
|  
 
|  
−
7
+
5
 
||  
 
||  
−
The cars that left via Wilson Forest Highway returned that night with normal radiation readings upon entering. However, they quickly began reporting extremely high radiation readings as well, and remained at Wilson forest overnight before leaving St.Himark again on the morning of April 10. If those cars got contaminated from spending the night at Wilson Forest, the authorities should be very concerned as the contamination could be spread to other cities that are connected to St.Himark.
+
On 9th April, Sensor 21,22,25,28,29 and 45 connections were offline since morning about 6am-8am but when turned back on about 6-8pm, their radiation count increased from safe levels to danger levels ranging about 1500cpm.
 +
 
 +
For Sensor 24, it left Scenic Vista via Wilson Forest Highway with radiation levels of 121 at 10 am and came back from another city via Wilson forest Highway with radiation levels of 195.
 +
 
 +
For Sensor 27, it returned to Scenic Vista at 7 pm with a healthy radiation value of 31. However, its radiation level increased from 31 to 1335 within an hour being at Scenic Vista.  
 +
 
 +
These cars posed a high risk of contamination as they were present at Scenic Vista during the radiation outbreak. The government should identify these vehicles and issue a warning to neighbouring cities nearby St.Himark.  
 +
 
 
|}
 
|}
  
Line 242: Line 218:
 
<div style="background: #364558; padding: 15px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 0.3em; text-indent: 0px;font-size:20px"><font face="Arial" color=#fbfcfd><center>'''Sensor Deployment Recommendation'''</center></font></div>
 
<div style="background: #364558; padding: 15px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 0.3em; text-indent: 0px;font-size:20px"><font face="Arial" color=#fbfcfd><center>'''Sensor Deployment Recommendation'''</center></font></div>
  
−
[[File:LPXASG14.jpg| 900px |center]]
 
−
{| class="wikitable" style="background-color:#FFFFFF;" width="100%"
 
−
|-
 
−
! style="font-weight: bold;background: #536a87;color:#fbfcfd;width: 10%;" | No.
 
−
! style="font-weight: bold;background: #536a87;color:#fbfcfd;width: 90%;" | Description
 
−
|-
 
−
|
 
−
8
 
−
||
 
−
Static Sensor 15 was supposed to be the first hand indication of radiation leaks, given its position right outside the nuclear plant. However, it’s premature failure during the simulation resulted in the lack of an immediate indicator. The static sensors’ short range also limited its usefulness in analysis of contamination and its spread. As the static sensors are costly, I would recommend repositioning the 9 existing sensors. To facilitate detection of radiation leaks, 3 static sensors should be placed in the vicinity of the always safe loop. This way, we will still have data if one or two of the sensors become damaged. The remaining 6 sensors should be placed at the start of each of the 6 bridges that connect St.Himark. This will help detect any form of contamination that is being carried to and from the city, and help authorities contain the contamination.
 
−
|-
 
−
|
 
−
9
 
−
||
 
−
As the mobile sensors are relatively cheaper, radiation monitoring within the city could be improved with the deployment of even more mobile sensors. With more mobile sensors there will be lower uncertainty in measurements and higher coverage, making for more meaningful analysis of the situation within the city. If increasing the number of mobile sensors is not possible, they should aim to even out the distribution of the mobile sensors, by selecting cars with different travel patterns.
 
−
|}
 
−
 
−
== Question 4 ==
 
−
===Summarize the state of radiation measurements at the end of the available period. Use your novel visualizations and analysis approaches to suggest a course of action for the city.===
 
−
----
 
−
<br>
 
−
<p>
 
−
<div style="background: #364558; padding: 15px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 0.3em; text-indent: 0px;font-size:20px"><font face="Arial" color=#fbfcfd><center>'''Contamination Control'''</center></font></div>
 
  
−
[[File:LPXASG15.jpg| 900px |center]]
 
 
{| class="wikitable" style="background-color:#FFFFFF;" width="100%"
 
{| class="wikitable" style="background-color:#FFFFFF;" width="100%"
 
|-
 
|-
Line 273: Line 225:
 
|-
 
|-
 
|  
 
|  
−
1
+
6
 
||  
 
||  
−
The 8 contaminated cars left St.Himark and have not returned since. To prevent further contamination, the city should attempt to locate the cars as soon as possible.
 
−
|-
 
−
|
 
−
2
 
−
||
 
−
Sensors M2 and M42 are still transmitting high radiation readings, and have been doing so for some time. This could be indicative of a contaminated area/car and should be looked into as well.
 
−
|}
 
  
−
<br>
+
[[File:redeploy.png| 900px |center]]
−
<p>
 
−
<div style="background: #364558; padding: 15px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 0.3em; text-indent: 0px;font-size:20px"><font face="Arial" color=#fbfcfd><center>'''Neighbourhoods of Concern'''</center></font></div>
 
−
 
 
−
[[File:LPXASG16.jpg| 900px |center]]
 
−
{| class="wikitable" style="background-color:#FFFFFF;" width="100%"
 
−
|-
 
−
! style="font-weight: bold;background: #536a87;color:#fbfcfd;width: 10%;" | No.
 
−
! style="font-weight: bold;background: #536a87;color:#fbfcfd;width: 90%;" | Description
 
−
|-
 
−
|
 
−
3
 
−
||
 
−
The number of cars going through Chapparal and Terrapin Springs suddenly decreased towards the end of the simulation. There could be infrastructural damage or other reasons leading to this decrease.
 
−
|}
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
===Use visual analytics to compare the static sensor network to the mobile sensor network. What are the strengths and weaknesses of each approach? How do they support each other?===
 
−
----
 
−
<br>
 
−
<p>
 
−
<div style="background: #364558; padding: 15px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 0.3em; text-indent: 0px;font-size:20px"><font face="Arial" color=#fbfcfd><center>'''Areas Lacking Coverage'''</center></font></div>
 
  
−
[[File:LPXASG13.jpg| 900px |center]]
+
Sensor 13 and 15, is positioned within 2 miles of the nuclear plant, was crucial in spotting any possibility of a radiation leak. However, during the course of the simulation, it failed to detect any possible radiation threat, unlike the other sensors. Close radiation exposure might have caused damage to the sensitivity of the sensors. Furthermore, there is a possibility of contaminated cars leaving St.Himark and returning. I will reposition the existing 9 sensors to cover entrances to the city via the bridges and towns currently undergoing sewer maintenance as radiation might spread through the sewers. This position will help authorities manage and contain the situation.  
−
{| class="wikitable" style="background-color:#FFFFFF;" width="100%"
 
−
|-
 
−
! style="font-weight: bold;background: #536a87;color:#fbfcfd;width: 10%;" | No.
 
−
! style="font-weight: bold;background: #536a87;color:#fbfcfd;width: 90%;" | Description
 
−
|-
 
−
|
 
−
4
 
−
||
 
−
The 9 static sensors are only cover 7 out of the 19 neighbourhoods, leaving many neighbourhoods in Central and Southeast St.Himark uncovered. The range of the static sensors also do not seem to be sufficient to detect radiation over an entire neighbourhood given their relatively low readings, with the occasional spike.  
 
−
|-
 
−
|
 
−
5
 
−
||
 
−
The mobile sensors provided much better coverage of the city, with the 50 sensors covering pretty much the entire island on a day to day basis. However, in the aftermath of an earthquake or major event (April 9 – 10) the mobility of cars can become restricted due to infrastructure damage. Citizens may also avoid travelling in the aftermath, resulting in lesser ground covered.
 
−
|}
 
  
−
== Question 5 ==
+
To ensure that the northwest region is covered, I will deploy two more sensors covering scenic vista and Wilson highway.  
−
===The data for this challenge can be analyzed either as a static collection or as a dynamic stream of data, as it would occur in a real emergency. Describe how you analyzed the data - as a static collection or a stream.===
 
−
----
 
−
<br>
 
−
<p>
 
−
<div style="background: #364558; padding: 15px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 0.3em; text-indent: 0px;font-size:20px"><font face="Arial" color=#fbfcfd><center>'''Visualizing Time Series'''</center></font></div>
 
  
−
[[File:LPXASG17.jpg| 900px |center]]
 
−
{| class="wikitable" style="background-color:#FFFFFF;" width="100%"
 
−
|-
 
−
! style="font-weight: bold;background: #536a87;color:#fbfcfd;width: 10%;" | No.
 
−
! style="font-weight: bold;background: #536a87;color:#fbfcfd;width: 90%;" | Description
 
 
|-
 
|-
 
|  
 
|  
−
1
+
7
 
||  
 
||  
−
In the process of designing the dashboard, I ensured that all the visualizations could be filtered by date. This is so that static analysis can be done on the entire dataset, as well as dynamic analysis by working on a sliding window of data.
 
−
|}
 
  
 +
Besides static sensors, I will add in more mobile sensors to ensure a wider area coverage. To ensure that the northwest region is covered throughout, I will recommend the government to target based on travel routes and provide the sensors to citizens that frequent Scenic Vista or Wilson Forest.
  
−
===How do you think this choice affected your analysis?===
 
−
----
 
−
<br>
 
−
<p>
 
−
<div style="background: #364558; padding: 15px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 0.3em; text-indent: 0px;font-size:20px"><font face="Arial" color=#fbfcfd><center>'''Dynamic versus Static Analysis'''</center></font></div>
 
−
 
−
[[File:LPXASG18.jpg| 900px |center]]
 
−
{| class="wikitable" style="background-color:#FFFFFF;" width="100%"
 
−
|-
 
−
! style="font-weight: bold;background: #536a87;color:#fbfcfd;width: 10%;" | No.
 
−
! style="font-weight: bold;background: #536a87;color:#fbfcfd;width: 90%;" | Description
 
−
|-
 
−
|
 
−
2
 
−
||
 
−
While most of the analysis could be done dynamically, static analysis is especially helpful when trying to identify clusters or patterns in the data. When viewing a stream of dynamic sensor data, it is very difficult to immediately identify patterns or gaps at a glance. However, when viewed statically, it is possible to sort them in a manner where visible clusters and patterns can be found to make meaningful analysis.
 
 
|}
 
|}

Latest revision as of 20:16, 13 October 2019

Cover.png


OVERVIEW

DATA TRANSFORMATION

RISKS

RECOMMENDATION AND RATIONALE

VISUALIZATION



Your task, as supported by visual analytics that you apply, is to help St. Himark’s emergency management team combine data from the government-operated stationary monitors with data from citizen-operated mobile sensors to help them better understand conditions in the city and identify likely locations that will require further monitoring, cleanup, or even evacuation. Will data from citizen scientists clarify the situation or make it more uncertain? Use visual analytics to develop responses to the questions below.

Contents

Question 1

Visualize radiation measurements over time from both static and mobile sensors to identify areas where radiation over background is detected. Characterize changes over time.


Step Description

1

MobileSensorValue.png
MobileSensorValueMap.png
                                                           Mobile Sensors

2

StaticSensorValue.png
                                                           Static Sensors

3

For the visualization of sensors over time, a Gantt chart view was created to analyze the values of radiation of both sensors. In general, places of concern include Old Town, Jade Bridge, and the southeast region which include Terrapin Springs, Wilson Forest and Scenic Vista. The time pills are set to continuous with "minutes" as the variable as the values are measured in counts per minute.

The readings from mobile sensors support Static Sensors, which shows a spike in radiation on areas like Old Town, Jade Bridge, and the southeast region.

Question 2

Use visual analytics to represent and analyze uncertainty in the measurement of radiation across the city. Compare uncertainty of the static sensors to the mobile sensors. What anomalies can you see? Are there sensors that are too uncertain to trust?


MissingMobile.png
                                                           Mobile
MissingStatic.png
                                                           Static

There were missing data for both the Static and Mobile Sensors.


EarthQuake.png
Sensor9Pickup.png
Sensor10Pickup.png

The earthquake might have happened around 7.10am on 8th April. A bunch of mobile sensors lost connectivity on the morning of 8th April around 7.16 am - 7.30 am. This might have caused a radiation leak at the nuclear plant. Shortly afterward from 1.26 pm to 4.27 pm, Mobile Sensor 9 which is driving beside the nuclear plant (Distance from plant = 0.62 miles), detected an increase in radiation level to 1301. At 5 pm, there was a surge in radiation levels at the entrance of the Jade bridge (Distance from plant = 6.26 miles).

Subsequently, there is an increase in radiation levels among radiation levels from 8th April onwards and more sensors stopped functioning.


Which regions of the city have greater uncertainty of radiation measurement? Use visual analytics to explain your rationale. What effects do you see in the sensor readings after the earthquake and other major events? What effect do these events have on uncertainty?

Static Sensors

The values from static sensors are more stable compared to mobile sensors due to the coverage.

Limitation: Scope of coverage

Static sensors only cover 8 out of 19 areas, missing out on crucial areas such as the southwest region which contain contaminated areas as reported by the mobile sensors.

StaticUncertainity.png

Furthermore, sensors 13 and sensor 15 are too abnormal to trust. Despite having reported high radiation levels after 8th April, these sensors remain stagnant with little or no spike despite being only 2.5 and 0.86 miles respectively from the radiator.


Mobile Sensors

Mobile sensors reported greater fluctuation in results as compared to static sensors, with values ranging from 0 to 1525.However, they cover more areas as compared to static sensors which explains the deviation. However, they too present certain risks and limitations despite being able to cover more areas.

Limitation: Scope of coverage

MobileSensorCoverage.png

As seen on the diagram above, the various counts of mobile sensors are denominated by blue. History Trails and Marks are set and you can see that the mobile sensors are clustered greatly into high activity towns such as Weston, Easton ,Southton , NorthTon and West Parton. The only ventured into the south western areas which contained high radiation values during Friday. With a lack of sample size in these areas, there is greater uncertainty of radiation measurement in these areas as values might be influenced by outliers caused by broken sensors.

Limitation: Inconsistency of data

Contanimatedcars.png

Mobile sensors presents greater loss of data compared to static sensors due to a higher chance of wear and tear. Furthermore, since they are stuck onto cars, data connectivity might be loss throughout the journey.

Furthermore, once a car is contaminated, the sensor will only reflect the value of radiation coming from the car and not the surrounding area. This can be seen from the graph above which shows mobile sensors 9,10,20,21,22,24,25,27,28,29 and 45 having lots of missing data or inflated radiation values after the earthquake.

Question 3

Given the uncertainty you observed in question 2, are the radiation measurements reliable enough to locate areas of concern? Highlight potential locations of contamination, including the locations of contaminated cars. Should St. Himark officials be worried about contaminated cars moving around the city?


Potential Locations of contamination
No. Description

1

After viewing the static sensor data, the only spikes that went above 100 happened in five locations, which are Jade Bridge, Old Town, Safe Town, DownTown and Broadview.

Spike 100Static.png

For better analysis, I have grouped together mobile sensors that have a trail of high radiation values within the five days as shown below.

MobileSensorsHighgroup.png


Tracking car movements

To better analyze potential locations of contamination, I would plot the coordinates of these group of mobile sensors and analyze their travel routes during the 5 days.

Mobile20 49.png
Mobile9 10.png
No. Description

2

After analyzing the route taken by the mobile sensors, I can confidently assure that there is contamination at Old Town, Jade Bridge, Safe Town, and Scenic Vista. For Mobile Sensors,20,21,22,24,25,27,28,29 and 45, their radiation value was low until they hit Scenic Vista and Jade Bridge, where their radiation value spike.

For Mobile Sensors 9 and 10, their radiation count only picked up once they were close to the nuclear plant and when they were at Jade Bridge. If sensors are working all right, despite being really close to the nuclear plant, the cars are not contaminated as they show no signs of high radiations values at other cities.


End State

Estimate how many cars may have been contaminated when coolant leaked from the Always Safe plant. Use visual analysis of radiation measurements to determine if any have left the area.


Possibly Contaminated Cars
EndState.png
No. Description

3

On April 10 at 11 pm, there were only two cars left out of the possible contaminated cars(Sensor ID 9 & 10). The rest of the cars have exited via Wilson Forest Highway from Scenic Vista.

4

Sensor 20 arrived at Scenic Vista on April 9, it got a spike in radiation levels at about 3pm to a level of 184.

5

On 9th April, Sensor 21,22,25,28,29 and 45 connections were offline since morning about 6am-8am but when turned back on about 6-8pm, their radiation count increased from safe levels to danger levels ranging about 1500cpm.

For Sensor 24, it left Scenic Vista via Wilson Forest Highway with radiation levels of 121 at 10 am and came back from another city via Wilson forest Highway with radiation levels of 195.

For Sensor 27, it returned to Scenic Vista at 7 pm with a healthy radiation value of 31. However, its radiation level increased from 31 to 1335 within an hour being at Scenic Vista.

These cars posed a high risk of contamination as they were present at Scenic Vista during the radiation outbreak. The government should identify these vehicles and issue a warning to neighbouring cities nearby St.Himark.


Indicated where you would deploy more sensors to improve radiation monitoring in the city. Would you recommend more static sensors or more mobile sensors or both? Use your visualization of radiation measurement uncertainty to justify your recommendation.


Sensor Deployment Recommendation


No. Description

6

Redeploy.png

Sensor 13 and 15, is positioned within 2 miles of the nuclear plant, was crucial in spotting any possibility of a radiation leak. However, during the course of the simulation, it failed to detect any possible radiation threat, unlike the other sensors. Close radiation exposure might have caused damage to the sensitivity of the sensors. Furthermore, there is a possibility of contaminated cars leaving St.Himark and returning. I will reposition the existing 9 sensors to cover entrances to the city via the bridges and towns currently undergoing sewer maintenance as radiation might spread through the sewers. This position will help authorities manage and contain the situation.

To ensure that the northwest region is covered, I will deploy two more sensors covering scenic vista and Wilson highway.

7

Besides static sensors, I will add in more mobile sensors to ensure a wider area coverage. To ensure that the northwest region is covered throughout, I will recommend the government to target based on travel routes and provide the sensors to citizens that frequent Scenic Vista or Wilson Forest.

Retrieved from ‘https://wiki.smu.edu.sg/1920t1is428g1/index.php?title=IS428_AY2019-20T1_Assign_Foo_Yong_Long_RiskAnalysis&oldid=6291’